Obstructive tenants

@Xenia wish you had agencies in syd, Brisbane and Melbourne!

 

I wish you had properties in Adelaide Leo

 

Hopefully one day....just waiting for the right deals for me

 

Good point.

 

Thats true, but the tenant can dictate to some extent when the opens happen and the tenant is not under obligation to have the house looking presentable for sale either. You are under no obligation to compensate the tenant but it would certainly be in your interest to do so.

 

Agree. We were lucky our tenant ended up being reasonable.

 

In our case, we had a cooperative tenant and it was certinaly not in our "interest" to do so. No point paying someone who is already cooperating. With an uncooperative tenant, there are a number of options including compensating them. What you need to be aware of is if you compensate a tenant, the tenant can still dictate when the opens happen and the tenant is not under any obligation to have the house looking presentable for sale either.

 

Just so im clear- Your tenant "spat it" as you say then demanded to break the lease, refused entry for open homes, demanded a discount in rent, refused entry for open homes and rang the leasing agent complaining. You still refused to lower the rent for the tenant but instead referred to legal obligations that they were bound to. This is a cooperative tenant? I think I will stick to my usual methods of compensating the tenants in exchange for a streamline selling experience.

 

He didn't refuse entry for open homes, he claimed he was going to refuse entry for photos, home opens and any other inspections. At that point he was uncooperative. However, he became cooperative as soon as he was advised of his legal obligations under the lease he signed. I can tell you what he actually did:
- made sure the house was clean and tidy for photos
- provided access to the house for all home opens
- made sure the house was clean and tidy for all home opens.

Not sure what your definition of cooperative is but I don't expect any more than that from a tenant.

And by the way, the place sold and we got a good price for it, so I'm not talking about a hypothetical situation here. Sure we had a couple of issues prior to the campaign starting but from photos to sale there were no issues at all.

 

Im glad it worked out for you.
I was simply repeating the words that you used in relation to a tenant and to me it reads as if the tenant was very unhappy and obliged due to being legally obligated. To me this definitely seems uncooperative but if this is cooperating to you then great. You did actually state that the tenant refused "home opens" but if it was for photos or whatever this is still problematic. I guess the difference with me is that I really appreciate my tenants and I can see it from their point of view. Nobody likes a bunch of strangers walking into their bedroom, into their bathroom etc. They have to leave the house or stay uncomfortably for the open. People bring their dirty shoes into the house, they open your wardrobes to inspect the space. Its not a nice experience. I can understand this which is why I would always give them one hundred dollars off a week during a campaign to show them that I appreciate their inconvenience regardless of their legal obligations.

 

Legal trumps feelings.

 

What on earth does that mean?

 

Exactly what it says. Bribing people to endure ''a not nice experience'' to do what they are legally obliged to do anyway is not a good thing. It might be necessary at times but it's not good.

 

Ok thats not exactly what it says
That may be your opinion that its not good, and I accept that. I wouldn't say its bribing though. Its compensating them and in my opinion its doing what is right and its keeping my tenant onside which I deem very important.

 

'they will get nothing out of it'?

tell them they will get the knowedge that you wont evict them at the end of the lease,

hinder the sale, and they will be out asap legally, and you will be telling the new owners to evict you at the first chance,

play ball and they can stay as long as they want within your circumstances and possibly the new owners too

 

ps if they dont like open for inspections, BUY, dont rent, then you can set any rules within your house

by renting someone ELSES property, you dont own it, legally the owner is allowed to do opens, etc etc

next they will be complaining that the agent isnt allowed in the house for their quarterly inspections

 

Exactly. This is what happened with my tenant. He said that he wanted to stay in the property after the sale. We did raise with him that if he was uncooperative during the sale process that this might reflect negatively on him when it was time for the new owner to renew the lease. He understood this which is another reason why he cooperated during the sales process.

 

And if everyone bought than who would rent your property? Not everyone is able to buy and some people have to rent whilst some people like me-choose to rent. Tenants are not beneath you and they have plenty of rights as well and open homes will need to be agreed with the tenants not dictated. Glad you are not my landlord